7 ms·

I agree that it's irrelevant information. You can argue that maybe it's unfair to FB, but you know what's even more unfair? Consumers being caught in the midd

I agree that it's irrelevant information. You can argue that maybe it's unfair to FB, but you know what's even more unfair? Consumers being caught in the middle of a fight between Apple and FB. Consumers being manipulated so big tech corp A can try and force a behavior change by big tech corp B by pissing off its customers. At the end of the day it's a phone that you call people on. Let the people who have purchased that phone be.

summitsummit 6y ago
> At the end of the day it's a phone that you call people on. this is certainly no longer the case
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  You don't use your phone for phone calls? That seems like a strange use for a phone...
  - metiscus 6y ago
    I think you are missing the point. Yes a smartphone is a phone but it has become integrated into people's lives as much more than that.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      So your argument is that because people really really really like their smartphones, FB should be able to tell everyone that Apple is charging them money? Non-Sequitur if I've ever seen one.
      - ashwoods 6y ago
        I think the point is that even though it is called a phone, it is actually a portable super computer, and in many cases the only one people have. We can’t pretend it is only a device we use to call other people, it is the gateway to our digital lives. From banking, access to government services, to connecting to our loved ones and leisure.
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. It wasn't even the main gist of my initial comment, but it was the one that got sniped because this is a technical board and people love their "well akshually"'s. The main gist is that FB is trying to use their customers to bring force to bear on Apple so they can make more money. They don't give a shit about the customers. And the customers aren't paying more money. Some of us can disagree with Apple's approach to their walled garden without thinking that means FB should be empathized with here. They're both shitty company's in their own way, but at least Apple isn't putting its customers in the middle of their fight. THAT was the main gist of my comment, and what no one wanted to actually address.
  - hhjinks 6y ago
    99% of people's use of smart phones has nothing to do with calling people.
    - nazka 6y ago
      Ya I’m actually sad that we now don’t call people as often as before...
      - munk-a 6y ago
        I'm not - I enjoy calls with family and the like but for anything business related it's a huge distraction and generally an assumption that the caller's time is more valuable than the callees. Send me an email or a IM/DM so that I can consume your point and respond on a schedule that suites me.
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        email doesn't imply a phone. In fact, I'd argue the phone aspect argues against what you're trying to say here. That you don't actually need to be able to see and respond to email immediately so having a phone is a moot point there.
        NeutronStar 6y ago
        Yeah, let me bring my desktop on road trips, it'll work so well! Ah yes, let's bring the laptop to the beach, that's gonna go as well too!
        nazka 6y ago
        Ya I was talking more about friends and family.
fogetti 6y ago
It's not irrelevant because there might be other platforms where you can buy the same product cheaper. And the 30 percent cut information might be a good hint to look elsewhere. I guess that's why Apple fights this so viciously.
- gwd 6y ago
  I definitely support Apple's right to charge 30% on their own platform; but I definitely think preventing people from talking about it is unreasonable.
  - natch 6y ago
    They aren’t prevented from taking about it though. They are just prevented from talking about it inside the app, for various reasons, such as Apple not wanting its app platform used as a venue for dissing itself, and because that kind of contentious content is not what Apple wants its users to experience when using Apple devices.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      “What Apple wants” does not trump consumer protection laws. In fact, this becomes even less so, because by having acquired enough market power that they can dictate terms to just about everyone through controlling a marketplace, this triggers additional safeguards against misuse of that power, and in particular, safeguards against misleading the consumer about their options. It is not unlawful to acquire market power, but abusing it is a path to billion dollar fines.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        Can you point to the specific consumer protection laws that Apple is breaking here?
        inopinatus 6y ago
        In my current operating jurisdiction that would be most likely Schedule 2 of the 2010 Competition & Consumer Act, Part 2-3 (Unfair contracts) with particular reference to s24(1)(a & c); s20 (Unconscionable conduct) with particular reference to s21(4)(c); s18(1) (Prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct) in general; and possibly (due to the scale of Apple's market power and active limitations on consumer communications) even s47 (Prohibition against exclusive dealing) which covers such an enormous multitude of cases of refusing to trade that it's almost impossible not to be in contravention as a marketplace unless you accept all participants, and with particular reference to s47(10) which makes it clear that substantially lessening competition is the main offence of this section.

summitsummit 6y ago

> At the end of the day it's a phone that you call people on. this is certainly no longer the case

RandoHolmes 6y ago
You don't use your phone for phone calls? That seems like a strange use for a phone...
- metiscus 6y ago
  I think you are missing the point. Yes a smartphone is a phone but it has become integrated into people's lives as much more than that.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    So your argument is that because people really really really like their smartphones, FB should be able to tell everyone that Apple is charging them money? Non-Sequitur if I've ever seen one.
    - ashwoods 6y ago
      I think the point is that even though it is called a phone, it is actually a portable super computer, and in many cases the only one people have. We can’t pretend it is only a device we use to call other people, it is the gateway to our digital lives. From banking, access to government services, to connecting to our loved ones and leisure.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. It wasn't even the main gist of my initial comment, but it was the one that got sniped because this is a technical board and people love their "well akshually"'s. The main gist is that FB is trying to use their customers to bring force to bear on Apple so they can make more money. They don't give a shit about the customers. And the customers aren't paying more money. Some of us can disagree with Apple's approach to their walled garden without thinking that means FB should be empathized with here. They're both shitty company's in their own way, but at least Apple isn't putting its customers in the middle of their fight. THAT was the main gist of my comment, and what no one wanted to actually address.
- hhjinks 6y ago
  99% of people's use of smart phones has nothing to do with calling people.
  - nazka 6y ago
    Ya I’m actually sad that we now don’t call people as often as before...
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I'm not - I enjoy calls with family and the like but for anything business related it's a huge distraction and generally an assumption that the caller's time is more valuable than the callees. Send me an email or a IM/DM so that I can consume your point and respond on a schedule that suites me.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        email doesn't imply a phone. In fact, I'd argue the phone aspect argues against what you're trying to say here. That you don't actually need to be able to see and respond to email immediately so having a phone is a moot point there.
        NeutronStar 6y ago
        Yeah, let me bring my desktop on road trips, it'll work so well! Ah yes, let's bring the laptop to the beach, that's gonna go as well too!
      - nazka 6y ago
        Ya I was talking more about friends and family.

fogetti 6y ago

It's not irrelevant because there might be other platforms where you can buy the same product cheaper. And the 30 percent cut information might be a good hint to look elsewhere. I guess that's why Apple fights this so viciously.

gwd 6y ago
I definitely support Apple's right to charge 30% on their own platform; but I definitely think preventing people from talking about it is unreasonable.
- natch 6y ago
  They aren’t prevented from taking about it though. They are just prevented from talking about it inside the app, for various reasons, such as Apple not wanting its app platform used as a venue for dissing itself, and because that kind of contentious content is not what Apple wants its users to experience when using Apple devices.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    “What Apple wants” does not trump consumer protection laws. In fact, this becomes even less so, because by having acquired enough market power that they can dictate terms to just about everyone through controlling a marketplace, this triggers additional safeguards against misuse of that power, and in particular, safeguards against misleading the consumer about their options. It is not unlawful to acquire market power, but abusing it is a path to billion dollar fines.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      Can you point to the specific consumer protection laws that Apple is breaking here?
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        In my current operating jurisdiction that would be most likely Schedule 2 of the 2010 Competition & Consumer Act, Part 2-3 (Unfair contracts) with particular reference to s24(1)(a & c); s20 (Unconscionable conduct) with particular reference to s21(4)(c); s18(1) (Prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct) in general; and possibly (due to the scale of Apple's market power and active limitations on consumer communications) even s47 (Prohibition against exclusive dealing) which covers such an enormous multitude of cases of refusing to trade that it's almost impossible not to be in contravention as a marketplace unless you accept all participants, and with particular reference to s47(10) which makes it clear that substantially lessening competition is the main offence of this section.